More Like this

1. Learning from Label Proportions:A Mutual Contamination Framework

   Scott, Clayton ; Zhang, Jianxin ( January 2020 , Advances in neural information processing systems)

   Learning from label proportions (LLP) is a weakly supervised setting for classification in whichunlabeled training instances are grouped into bags, and each bag is annotated with the proportion ofeach class occurring in that bag. Prior work on LLP has yet to establish a consistent learning procedure,nor does there exist a theoretically justified, general purpose training criterion. In this work we addressthese two issues by posing LLP in terms of mutual contamination models (MCMs), which have recentlybeen applied successfully to study various other weak supervision settings. In the process, we establishseveral novel technical results for MCMs, including unbiased losses and generalization error bounds undernon-iid sampling plans. We also point out the limitations ofa common experimental setting for LLP,and propose a new one based on our MCM framework.
2. Learning from Label Proportions by Learning with Label Noise

   Zhang, Jianxin ; Wang, Yutong ; Scott, Clayton ( January 2022 , Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022))

   Learning from label proportions (LLP) is a weakly supervised classification problem where data points are grouped into bags, and the label proportions within each bag are observed instead of the instance-level labels. The task is to learn a classifier to predict the labels of future individual instances. Prior work on LLP for multi-class data has yet to develop a theoretically grounded algorithm. In this work, we propose an approach to LLP based on a reduction to learning with label noise, using the forward correction (FC) loss of Patrini et al. [30]. We establish an excess risk bound and generalization error analysis for our approach, while also extending the theory of the FC loss which may be of independent interest. Our approach demonstrates improved empirical performance in deep learning scenarios across multiple datasets and architectures, compared to the leading methods.
3. When BERT meets Bilbo: a learning curve analysis of pretrained language model on disease classification

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-01829-2  

   Li, Xuedong ; Yuan, Walter ; Peng, Dezhong ; Mei, Qiaozhu ; Wang, Yue ( April 2022 , BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making)

   Natural language processing (NLP) tasks in the health domain often deal with limited amount of labeled data due to high annotation costs and naturally rare observations. To compensate for the lack of training data, health NLP researchers often have to leverage knowledge and resources external to a task at hand. Recently, pretrained large-scale language models such as the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) have been proven to be a powerful way of learning rich linguistic knowledge from massive unlabeled text and transferring that knowledge to downstream tasks. However, previous downstream tasks often used training data at such a large scale that is unlikely to obtain in the health domain. In this work, we aim to study whether BERT can still benefit downstream tasks when training data are relatively small in the context of health NLP.

   We conducted a learning curve analysis to study the behavior of BERT and baseline models as training data size increases. We observed the classification performance of these models on two disease diagnosis data sets, where some diseases are naturally rare and have very limited observations (fewer than 2 out of 10,000). The baselines included commonly used text classification models such as sparse andmore »dense bag-of-words models, long short-term memory networks, and their variants that leveraged external knowledge. To obtain learning curves, we incremented the amount of training examples per disease from small to large, and measured the classification performance in macro-averaged$$F_{1}$$$F_1$score.

   On the task of classifying all diseases, the learning curves of BERT were consistently above all baselines, significantly outperforming them across the spectrum of training data sizes. But under extreme situations where only one or two training documents per disease were available, BERT was outperformed by linear classifiers with carefully engineered bag-of-words features.

   As long as the amount of training documents is not extremely few, fine-tuning a pretrained BERT model is a highly effective approach to health NLP tasks like disease classification. However, in extreme cases where each class has only one or two training documents and no more will be available, simple linear models using bag-of-words features shall be considered.

   « less
4. Issues in the Reproducibility of Deep Learning Results

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB47826.2019.9037840  

   Jean-Paul, S. ; Elseify, T. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2019 , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)

   The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should producemore »identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues.« less
5. Inductive Representation Learning in Temporal Networks via Causal Anonymous Walks

   Wang, Yanbang ; Chang, Yen-Yu ; Liu, Yunyu ; Leskovec, Jure ; Li, Pan ( January 2021 , International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR))

   Temporal networks serve as abstractions of many real-world dynamic systems. These networks typically evolve according to certain laws, such as the law of triadic closure, which is universal in social networks. Inductive representation learning of temporal networks should be able to capture such laws and further be applied to systems that follow the same laws but have not been unseen during the training stage. Previous works in this area depend on either network node identities or rich edge attributes and typically fail to extract these laws. Here, we propose Causal Anonymous Walks (CAWs) to inductively represent a temporal network. CAWs are extracted by temporal random walks and work as automatic retrieval of temporal network motifs to represent network dynamics while avoiding the time-consuming selection and counting of those motifs. CAWs adopt a novel anonymization strategy that replaces node identities with the hitting counts of the nodes based on a set of sampled walks to keep the method inductive, and simultaneously establish the correlation between motifs. We further propose a neural-network model CAW-N to encode CAWs, and pair it with a CAW sampling strategy with constant memory and time cost to support online training and inference. CAW-N is evaluated to predictmore »links over 6 real temporal networks and uniformly outperforms previous SOTA methods by averaged 15% AUC gain in the inductive setting. CAW-N also outperforms previous methods in 5 out of the 6 networks in the transductive setting.« less